In the Matter of Ardie Walser, Board of Education of the Township of Teaneck, Bergen Count, 11/29/2023, (#342-23)

SEC Dkt. No. C75-18
OAL Dkt. No. EEC 10572-19
Agency Dkt. No. 7-7/23A
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
In the Matter of Ardie Walser,
Board of Education of the Township of
Teaneck, Bergen County
This matter involves an appeal of a School Ethics Commission (Commission) decision issued
on June 27, 2023, determining that appellant – a member of the Teaneck Board of Education (Board)
– violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(a), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c), and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(d) of the School Ethics
Act (Act) by using his Board email account and the Board website to promote his personal business.
The Commission recommended that appellant be censured for the violation. For the reasons
explained herein, the Commissioner remands the matter to the Commission for further proceedings.
The Commission transmitted this matter to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) on or about
July 26, 2019. In March 2021, the Commission served interrogatories and requests for production of
documents on appellant through his counsel, Philip E. Stern, Esq. (Stern) of the law firm of
DiFrancesco, Bateman, Kunzman, Davis, Lehrer & Flaum, PC. Stern failed to respond to the discovery
requests. In March 2022, the Commission served requests for admissions on Stern; he again failed
to respond. During 2022, Stern also failed to appear for three conferences scheduled by the
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). In May 2022, the Commission filed a motion to deem admitted the
requests for admission and to strike appellant’s answer for failure to respond to discovery requests.
In January 2023, the ALJ granted the motion, and the parties requested that the file be returned to
the Commission. On April 14, 2023, the ALJ issued an Initial decision dismissing the matter. On
342-23

2
June 27, 2023, the Commission rejected the Initial Decision, finding that because the answer had
been stricken, the matter was no longer a contested case, and the Commission’s regulations provide
that the matter should be determined on a summary basis. The Commission found that appellant
had violated the Act and recommended a penalty of censure.
On appeal, Stern states that he “failed to competently represent” appellant and that he
“failed to communicate those failures” to appellant. Stern characterizes his actions as a “betrayal”
of appellant, stating that he “cannot overemphasize his injurious role in this fiasco” and that he failed
“miserably.” Although Stern cites to a litany of personal issues, he acknowledges that he is “acutely
aware that he is not unique in having to deal with personal crises while taking responsibility for
clients.” He also admits that he is a part of a law firm that was available to assist “in a heartbeat”
with the “fairly rudimentary task” of answering discovery requests, but he failed to seek any
assistance from his firm. Stern argues that the Commission incorrectly found that appellant had
violated the Act and, if the Commission’s decision is not reversed, the case should be remanded to
the Commission for a full hearing on the merits.
Upon review, the Commissioner concludes that appellant was not responsible for the
behavior of his attorney, and that it is in the interests of justice to remand this matter to the
Commission for further proceedings. While not directly on point, the Commissioner finds case law
surrounding default judgments to be instructive here. Under N.J.Ct.R. 4:50-1(a), a default judgment
may be vacated based on excusable neglect. “Carelessness may be excusable when attributable to
an honest mistake that is compatible with due diligence or reasonable prudence.” Mancini v. Eds, 132
N.J. 330, 335 (1992). Here, Stern’s neglect was inexcusable. As he admits, attorneys routinely deal
with issues in their personal lives while representing their clients. Moreover, Stern is not a solo
practitioner, but is employed by a firm that includes numerous other attorneys. If Stern’s personal

3
issues were so insurmountable that he could not competently represent appellant, then he could
easily have sought assistance from his firm, but he failed to do so.
Default judgments may also be vacated for any other reason justifying relief. N.J.Ct.R. 4:50-
1(f). The New Jersey Supreme Court has stated that a court should view the opening of default
judgments “with great liberality.” Mancini, supra, 132 N.J. at 334. It is clear that appellant intended
to contest the facts alleged in the complaint, and he would have done so if not for Stern’s failures.
The Commissioner finds that it would be unjust to hold appellant responsible for his attorney’s
failures by affirming the decision the Commission made on a summary basis.1 However, the
Commissioner finds that it is premature to reach a decision on the merits, as the record has not been
fully developed through proceedings at the OAL.
Accordingly, this matter is remanded to the Commission for further proceedings consistent
with this decision.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision:
Date of Mailing:
1 The Commissioner notes that it was entirely appropriate for the Commission to proceed on a summary basis
following the striking of appellant’s answer. Only the information presented to the Commissioner on appeal
regarding Stern’s conduct, which was never presented to the Commission, requires a different outcome.
November 20, 2023
November 22, 2023

Before the School Ethics Commission
OAL Docket No.: EEC-10572-19
SEC Docket No.: C75-18
Final Decision
I/M/O Ardie Walser,
Teaneck Board of Education, Bergen County
I. 	Procedural History
The above-captioned matter arises from a Complaint that was filed on December 5,
2018,1 by Michael Pagan (Complainant) alleging that Ardie Walser (Respondent) a member of
the Teaneck Board of Education (Board), violated the School Ethics Act (Act), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-
21 et seq. 2 More specifically, the Complaint alleged that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-
24(a), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(d), based on four instances of using his
Board email account or Board website to promote his personal business.
On January 22, 2019, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss in Lieu of an Answer
(Motion to Dismiss) and also alleged that the Complaint is frivolous. On February 11, 2019,
Complainant filed a response to the Motion to Dismiss and allegation of frivolous filing.
At its meeting on March 26, 2019, the Commission considered the filings in this matter
and, at a special meeting on May 2, 2019, the Commission voted to deny the Motion to Dismiss
in its entirety, and to direct Respondent to file an Answer. The Commission also voted to find the
Complaint not frivolous, and to deny the request for sanctions. On May 23, 2019, Respondent
filed an Answer as directed.
At its special meeting on July 23, 2019, the Commission adopted a decision finding
probable cause for all of the allegations in the Complaint. Based on its finding of probable cause,
the Commission transmitted the above-captioned matter to the Office of Administrative Law
(OAL) for a plenary hearing, and, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:28-10.7(b), the attorney for the
Commission (Petitioner) was charged with prosecuting the allegations in the Complaint which
the Commission found probable cause to credit.
At 	the 	OAL, 	following 	Respondent’s 	failure 	to 	answer 	discovery 	requests, 	the
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an Order on January 13, 2023, deeming the unanswered
Requests for Admission “Admitted” and suppressing Respondent’s Answer with Defenses.
1 On December 5, 2018, Complainant filed a deficient Complaint; however, on December 14, 2018,
Complainant cured all defects and filed an Amended Complaint that was deemed compliant with the
requirements detailed in N.J.A.C. 6A:28-6.3.
2 The Complaint also alleged that Shahanzaz Arjumand (Respondent Arjumand) violated N.J.S.A.
18A:12-24(a), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(d) in Count 3. Complainant voluntarily
withdrew all allegations against Respondent Arjumand.

2
Thereafter, on April 14, 2023, the ALJ issued an Initial Decision dismissing the matter without
prejudice.
Petitioner filed Exceptions to the Initial Decision, in accordance with N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4.
Respondent did not file a Reply.
At its regularly scheduled meeting on May 23, 2023, the Commission considered the full
record in this matter. Thereafter, at its meeting on June 27, 2023, the Commission voted to reject
the Initial Decision and issue a determination on a summary basis, finding that Respondent
violated 	N.J.S.A. 	18A:12-24(a), 	N.J.S.A. 	18A:12-24(c) 	and 	N.J.S.A. 	18A:12-24(d) 	and
recommending a penalty of censure.
II. 	Order and Initial Decision
After transmittal of this matter in July 2019, and a delay in the proceedings that appears
to have been due in part to the COVID-19 pandemic, the ALJ issued an Order on January 13,
2023 to address Respondent’s outstanding discovery requests. In the written Order, the ALJ
noted that Respondent’s counsel failed to appear for at least three telephone conferences in 2022
and did not reply to Petitioner’s discovery requests. As a result of the outstanding discovery,
Petitioner filed a motion on May 26, 2022, seeking to have the Requests for Admission deemed
admitted and sanctions, including striking Respondent’s Answer. Respondent did not respond to
the discovery or the motion. Accordingly, in the January 13, 2023, Order, the ALJ granted the
requested relief, deeming the Requests for Admission “Admitted” and suppressing Respondent’s
Answer with Defenses.
Thereafter, on April 14, 2023, the ALJ issued an Initial Decision finding the January 13,
2023, Order was dispositive of the case. The ALJ concluded that he was “unable to address the
merits” of this matter, deemed the matter closed, and returned the file to the Commission. The
ALJ further indicated Respondent’s attorney “reserves his right to seek to have the matter re-
opened.” Initial Decision at 2. As such, the ALJ dismissed the matter without prejudice.
III. 	Exceptions
In its exceptions, Petitioner argues that the ALJ erred in dismissing the Complaint
without prejudice because the Complaint was never dismissed. Instead, Petitioner explains the
matter was returned to the agency because Respondent’s Answer was stricken due to his failure
to provide discovery responses and was, therefore, no longer a contested case. As such, the case
should have been returned to the agency for the Commission to determine on a summary basis,
pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:28-10.7(c)(2)(i), 3 as the facts are no longer in dispute.
Petitioner also takes exception to the statement in the Initial Decision that Respondent’s
attorney “reserves his right to seek to have the matter re-opened.” Exceptions at 4. Petitioner
notes that Respondent did not “open” the matter initially, so he could not reserve a right to “re-
open” the case. Id. at 6. Further, Petitioner surmises that “[p]erhaps the ALJ confused this case
for one where the State agency was the respondent rather than the petitioner.” Id. at 5.
3 As this matter was initiated before March 6, 2023, the rules in effect prior to that date are applicable to
this matter.

3
Accordingly, Petitioner reiterates that the matter is no longer contested, the facts are not in
dispute, and therefore, the Commission should determine whether there is a violation on a
summary basis.
Respondent did not file exceptions and/or a reply to Petitioner’s exceptions.
IV. 	Analysis of the Initial Decision
After review, the Commission finds the Initial Decision in the above-captioned matter
must be rejected. In the January 13, 2023, Order, the ALJ deemed the Requests for Admission
“Admitted” and determined to strike Respondent’s Answer due to failure to respond to discovery
requests for an extended period of time. Without an Answer, the matter is no longer a contested
case. Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:28-10.7(c)(2)(i), “where a matter is transmitted to the OAL and the
respondent fails to appear before the OAL and the matter is returned to the Commission for
disposition, the allegation(s) which the Commission found probable cause to credit shall be
deemed admitted and the Commission may proceed to a determination of a violation on a
summary basis.” While this matter was not returned for Respondent’s failure to appear, the
matter was returned to the Commission as the Answer was stricken, which would similarly
require a determination on a summary basis. The Commission found probable cause that
Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(a), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(d).
As such, the ALJ’s dismissal of this matter without prejudice before a determination on those
allegations is inappropriate, and must be rejected. Accordingly, the Commission will decide this
matter summarily.
V. 	Summary Decision
A. Factual Findings
As Respondent’s Answer has been stricken in accordance with the January 13, 2023,
Order, the facts alleged in the Complaint are uncontested. By way of background, Respondent’s
bio on the Board website provided that he is the co-founder and director of Math Adventures and
Word Play (MAWP), a private tutoring program.
According to the Complaint, on October 10, 2018, an email was sent from the Whittier
Elementary 	School/Teaneck 	Public 	Schools 	District 	(District) 	email 	account 	to 	the
parents/guardians of students in the District, which contained a link for MAWP and directed
anyone interested 	to 	contact 	“Ardie Walser” 	via email 	or telephone. 	Additional 	contact
information was provided for two other people, including “Ardie Walser’s spouse.” Complainant
asserted that although well intended, this program should not have been promoted within the
District, and therefore, Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(a), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c) and
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(d) in Count 1, because he is a member of the Board/Board President and
there is “inherently a conflict with his official role and this role.” According to Complainant, it
places a principal, administrative official, or teacher in an “uncomfortable position” when
correspondence is being requested which includes the name of, or at the request of, the Board
President 	and 	Respondent 	is 	“directly 	interacting 	with 	[District] 	students 	and 	making
commentary on the academic work they are being exposed to in the schools.”

4
Complainant further asserted that on or about October 7, 2018, the Board authorized a
flyer to be posted on the Board’s website for MAWP. The flyer names “Ardie Walser,” as the
contact person. Complainant alleged that Respondent is Board President and has the authority to
determine what information is, and is not, posted on the Board’s website, and therefore,
Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(a), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(d) in
Count 2, because he is a member of the Board/Board President, and this is in “conflict with his
duties in the eye of the public interest.” Once again, this information places a principal,
administrative official or teacher in an uncomfortable position.
Complainant 	maintained 	that 	on 	or 	about 	November 	17, 	2018, 	“various 	PTO
organizations” posted information regarding events that MAWP was hosting, after Respondent
sent an email containing the information. Complainant asserted the events, which are “pushed by
various board members and the school,” appear to be “official events” and may “prejudice the
independence and judgments of official 	action.” Therefore, Respondent violated N.J.S.A.
18A:12-24(a), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(d) in Count 3, because the topic of
discussion relates to the operation of the schools, specifically technology and education, and
Respondent Walser’s role as director of this program “blurs the line between” public and private
life, and makes it appear that this is an official Board event.
Finally, Complainant contended that on November 19, 2018, Respondent replied to an
email from a community member (and possible Board candidate), who was expressing her
discontent with a recent Board meeting. In his reply, which was sent from his Board email
account, Respondent told the member that if she would like to discuss her concerns further, she
could meet him on Saturday, while he was working with students and their families to “improve
education for ALL…” and directed her to the MAWP website. Also copied on the email, was the
superintendent, Board members, and members of the public, and therefore, Complainant alleged
that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(a), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-
24(d) in Count 3, because he is urging members of the public to come to his event to discuss
official Board actions/matters, which blurs the line between a Board member and his private
life/business. This is compounded by the fact that Respondent used his District email account to
advertise the event, and included the superintendent and other Board members on the email, thus
giving the perception that the event is Board/District approved.
In addition to the facts established in the Complaint, the January 13, 2023, Order of the
OAL, also deems the twenty-five Requests for Admission “Admitted.” The relevant facts
determined “Admitted” in the Requests for Admission, without repeating those that are already
deemed uncontested in the Complaint, are as follows:
… 16. When various PTOs posted information about MAWP events,
these 	events 	appear 	to 	be 	official 	Board 	events 	and 	may 	prejudice 	the
independence and judgments of official action. ...
21. 	Your business/employment with MAWP is in substantial conflict
with the proper duties as a Board member and Board President.
22. 	In your capacity as a Board member/President, you used or
otherwise directed the use of the District’s e-mail and website to promote your
personal business.

5
23. 	The nature of your employment by/with MAWP in and of itself
might reasonably be expected to prejudice your independence of judgment in the
exercise of your official duties as a Board member and Board President.
24. 	In your capacity as a Board member/President, you directed PTO
organizations to advertise the work of your personal business.
25. 	In your capacity as a Board member/President, you used or
otherwise directed the use of the District resources to promote “the good work” of
your personal business.
B. Analysis and Conclusions of Law
Based upon its review of this matter, including the uncontested facts and the
“Admitted” facts and findings in the record, the Commission concludes that Respondent
violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(a), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(d), which
provide:
a. 	No school official or member of his immediate family shall have
an interest in a business organization or engage in any business, transaction, or
professional activity, which is in substantial conflict with the proper discharge of
his duties in the public interest;
c. 	No school official shall act in his official capacity in any matter
where he, a member of his immediate family, or a business organization in which
he has an interest, has a direct or indirect financial involvement that might
reasonably be expected to impair his objectivity or independence of judgment. No
school official shall act in his official capacity in any matter where he or a
member of his immediate family has a personal involvement that is or creates
some benefit to the school official or member of his immediate family;
d. 	No school official shall undertake any employment or service,
whether compensated or not, which might reasonably be expected to prejudice his
independence of judgment in the exercise of his official duties;
With respect to Count 1, Respondent’s use of his District email account to promote his
personal business by sending parents/guardians in the District a link for MAWP and directing
those interested to contact him or his spouse violates N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(a), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-
24(c) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(d). The use of his District email to seek clients for the financial
benefit of his business demonstrates that Respondent used his official capacity on the Board for
personal gain. Additionally, the direct interaction with District students regarding their academic
work through his private business demonstrates a direct and substantial conflict with his ability
to discharge his duties as a Board member, and the nature of Respondent’s employment at his
private tutoring company, which he sought to promote through his Board email, can reasonably
be expected to impair his objectivity and prejudice his independence of judgment.

6
When Respondent, in his position as Board President, authorized a flyer to be posted on
the 	Board’s 	website 	that 	advertised 	his 	personal 	business, 	his 	personal 	interests 	were
substantially in conflict with his duties in the public interest, and he used his official capacity as
a Board member to publicize his business in order to obtain a financial benefit. Respondent’s use
of his official capacity on the Board to financially benefit his business, and the nature of his
employment as co-founder of MAWP, can reasonably be expected to prejudice his independence
of judgment in his duties as a Board member. As such, Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-
24(a), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(d) in Count 2.
In Count 3, Respondent sent an email to “PTO organizations” regarding upcoming events
MAWP was hosting that urged the organizations to post and advertise the events. The use of his
position on the Board to promote his personal business, which creates the appearance that such
events are official school events, creates a substantial conflict as it blurs the line between his
financial interest in MAWP and his position on the Board. Respondent’s direct role in approving
the website content in order to market his private company illustrates his blatant use of his
official capacity on the Board for personal, financial gain. These actions, and Respondent’s
leadership position at MAWP, may result in his inability to exercise sound judgment in his
official duties. As such, Respondent is in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(a), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-
24(c) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(d).
Respondent’s use of his Board email account to communicate with the public and solicit
a meeting with a community member during a time when he would be working with students and
families through MAWP, as established in Count 4, violates N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(a), N.J.S.A.
18A:12-24(c) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(d). Respondent deliberately used his official capacity in
responding to an email as a Board member to set up a meeting at his private tutoring company, in
which he has a financial interest. Respondent’s actions to promote his personal business create
an obvious and substantial conflict as he is attempting to conduct responsibilities for his position
on the Board at the same time as he is working in his capacity as co-founder and director of
MAWP. Such a conflict gives the appearance as though his personal MAWP event is also a
Board event and his employment at MAWP can, therefore, reasonably be expected to prejudice
his independence of judgment when executing his Board member duties.
Accordingly, and based on a complete and thorough review of the record, and the
undisputed evidence as set forth herein, the Commission finds that Respondent violated N.J.S.A.
18A:12-24(a), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(d) in Counts 1-4 of the Complaint.
VI. 	Recommended Penalty
Having found that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(a), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c) and
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(d), the Commission is authorized to recommend to the Commissioner of
Education (Commissioner) an appropriate penalty, which may range from reprimand to removal.
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-29(c).
In reaching its determination of a penalty in this matter, the Commission emphasizes the
severity of Respondent’s violations of the Act, which did not occur once, but rather in several
instances. The Commission finds that based on the undisputed record before it, Respondent
deliberately and intentionally used his position on the Board to benefit financially through
soliciting clients for his personal tutoring business. The Commission finds such blatant violations

7
of the Act are egregious. The Commission, therefore, recommends a penalty of censure for
Respondent’s violations of the Act. 4
Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:12-29(c), this decision shall be forwarded to the Commissioner
of Education for review of the Commission’s recommended penalty. The parties may either:
1) file exceptions to the recommended sanction; 2) file an appeal of the Commission’s finding of
a violation; or 3) file both exceptions to the recommended sanction together with an appeal of the
finding of a violation.
Parties taking exception to the recommended sanction of the Commission but not
disputing the Commission’s finding of a violation may file, within thirteen (13) days from the
date the Commission’s decision is forwarded to the Commissioner, written exceptions regarding
the recommended penalty to the Commissioner. The forwarding date shall be the mailing date to
the parties, as indicated below. Such exceptions must be forwarded to: Commissioner of
Education, c/o Bureau of Controversies and Disputes, P.O. Box 500, Trenton, New Jersey 08625,
marked 	“Attention: 	Comments 	on 	Ethics 	Commission 	Sanction,” 	as 	well 	as 	to
(ControversiesDisputesFilings@doe.nj.gov). A copy must also be sent to the Commission
(school.ethics@doe.nj.gov) and all other parties.
Parties seeking to appeal the Commission’s finding of violation must file an appeal
pursuant to the standards set forth at N.J.A.C. 6A:4:1 et seq. within thirty (30) days of the filing
date of the decision from which the appeal is taken. The filing date shall be three (3) days after
the date of mailing to the parties, as shown below. In such cases, the Commissioner’s review of
the 	Commission’s 	recommended 	sanction 	will 	be 	deferred 	and 	incorporated 	into 	the
Commissioner’s review of the finding of violation on appeal. Where a notice of appeal has been
filed on or before the due date for exceptions to the Commission’s recommended sanction
(thirteen (13) days from the date the decision is mailed by the Commission), exceptions need not
be filed by that date, but may be incorporated into the appellant’s briefs on appeal.
Robert W. Bender, Chairperson
School Ethics Commission
Mailing Date: 	June 27, 2023
4 The Commission acknowledges that Respondent is no longer a member of the Board, but notes that
there is precedent for issuing a penalty of censure against a respondent who is no longer a board member.
See I/M/O Daniel Leonard, Toms River Board of Education, Ocean County, Commission Docket Nos.
C56-19 and C57-10 (Consolidated), decided November 16, 2021, penalty adopted Commissioner
Decision No. 201-22SEC, dated August 12, 2022 (issuing a censure for a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-
24.1(e) after the respondent’s term on the board of education had ended).